ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 towards cash deposit in bank as unexplained cannot be sustained since source of cash deposited duly explained. Accordingly, addition of around Rs. 8.60 Crores deleted.
ITAT Raipur held that assessment framed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act by Additional CIT in absence of order under section 127 and order under section 120(4)(b) is invalid as without having valid assumption of jurisdiction.
ITAT Hyderabad directs AO to reassess Satyam Computer Services [Now, Tech Mahindra Limited] for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 to 2008-2009 in light of the judgement of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest on advance given to entity how became Non Performing Asset (NPA) cannot be brought to tax since the income is really not accrued to the assessee. Accordingly, addition is rightly deleted by CIT(A).
ITAT Pune held that entire cash deposits into the bank account cannot be treated as income, only profit element embedded in the same should be brought to tax. Thus, addition adopting 8% profit rate confirmed. Appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that proceedings u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act is bad in law since case falls within parameters of rule 112F r.w. third proviso to section 153A, however, no certificate was issued by investigating officer even when cash was found during election period.
ITAT Mumbai held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) due to availability of sufficient interest free funds for the purpose of making investment in exempt income yielding assets.
ITAT Mumbai held that the view taken by AO was a plausible view and the same cannot be subjected to revision under Section 263 of the Act merely for the reasons that PCIT does not agree with the same. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Pune remands Sai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal’s exemption case (Sec 10(23C)(iiiad)) to CIT(A), citing lack of fair hearing. Delay condoned based on Supreme Court’s Katiji precedent.
ITAT Cochin partially allowed an NRI assessee’s appeal, restricting the disallowance of construction costs to Rs. 10 lakhs from Rs. 1.3 crore and deleting the cost of improvement, citing lack of documentary evidence.
